Hannon-Johnson v. Kansas City Area Transportation Authority
4:16-cv-01205
W.D. Mo.May 31, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Felicia Hannon-Johnson worked for KCATA from 2005–2016 and alleges disability discrimination and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) after termination.
- Plaintiff sued in Jackson County, Missouri state court; KCATA removed to federal court asserting federal-question jurisdiction based on the bi-state Compact that created KCATA (Congress approved the Compact in 1966).
- KCATA argued that interpreting the Compact (a federal law by congressional consent) is necessary to decide whether KCATA is subject to Missouri employment law, thus creating a federal question under Grable/Gunn.
- Plaintiff moved to remand; she did not file a response brief to KCATA’s removal argument.
- The court applied the Grable test (whether a state-law claim necessarily raises a substantial federal issue) and found KCATA failed to show that resolving the Compact’s scope was "necessary" to the plaintiff’s MHRA claims as pleaded.
- The court treated KCATA’s Compact argument as an affirmative federal-law defense that cannot alone create federal jurisdiction, and granted remand to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case arises under federal law because resolution requires construing the KCATA Compact | Hannon-Johnson: her MHRA complaint need only plead elements of the state statute (including that KCATA is an "employer"); she need not plead or establish Compact-based immunity on the face of the complaint | KCATA: the Compact, as federal law by congressional consent, must be construed to determine whether KCATA is subject to Missouri law; that federal issue makes removal proper | Held: No. Construction of the Compact is not "necessary" to the state-law claims as pleaded; removal improper and case remanded |
| Whether a federal defense (Compact immunity) can confer federal-question jurisdiction | Plaintiff: (implicit) a defense cannot create federal jurisdiction | KCATA: Compact-based immunity is a central federal issue justifying federal jurisdiction | Held: Defense-based federal issues do not create "arising under" jurisdiction (Merrell Dow rule applied) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433 (construction of an interstate compact approved by Congress presents a federal question)
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (federal jurisdiction over state claims requires a federal issue that is necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial, and consistent with federal-state balance)
- Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (a federal-question defense does not create federal jurisdiction)
- Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (restating the Grable test and emphasizing the substantiality and federal-state balance requirements)
- Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677 (discussing limits on federal "arising under" jurisdiction and the centrality requirement)
- Great Lakes Gas Transmission Ltd. P’ship v. Essar Steel Minn. LLC, 843 F.3d 325 (8th Cir.) (applying Grable factors and rejecting federal jurisdiction where factors were not satisfied)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (well-pleaded complaint rule governs federal-question jurisdiction)
- Hartis v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 656 F.3d 778 (8th Cir.) (burden of proof for removal jurisdiction rests with the removing party)